Richt assesses Perry after first practice

[kryptonite]

Is Weldon getting a shirt? Or is he just dumb as a box of rocks and not grasping the offense? So far only hear three names as potential starters: Rosier, Perry, and Sherriffs. I thought Weldon was supposed to be a 4-5 star caliber qb who was underrated due to injury. Sounds like he is fourth string at this point, which means he is less useful than Gray Crow (who at least made a sizeable financial donation to the team after he left)

This is what most of the brain dead ppl on this board call "Logic"

If that's supposed to be a dig at me, uhh.. Ok. Maybe I missed something about a new injury holding Weldon back. I just haven't heard his name at all in the qb race, which seems unusual. When recruited we heard he was vastly underrated, figured he had as good as shot as any at winning the starting job.

It's the first day of camp, so yeah I imagine that was directed at you.

I've listened to every podcast Peter Ariz has posted and lots of radio interviews discussing the qb situation going into camp. In the most recent interview with Donno, the shocking twist was that the pecking order going into camp was 1) Perry 2) Sherriffs 3) Rosier. Weldon didn't even merit a mention. That's why I was asking what the **** happened to him in spring practice.

Being the first day, I thought asking about Weldon was a little premature but understandable. It was the part where you completely wrote him off and compared him (unfavorably) to Gray Crow that made me worry about your mental faculties.

 

[Squid Bumciorek]

Going into camp he is 4th string. I've heard no buzz about him lately, such as "wait until he gets in pads" or "he has great chemistry with Richards." Nothing. If he is going to win the position, he'll never have a better shot than right now (and it's not looking good). I have nothing against Gray Crow, always a need for good scout qbs. I don't think it's unfair to wonder why a QB who was considered by many to be way faster, athletic, and more polished than Perry isn't neck and neck with him to start. Instead he is chilling with Testaverde Jr on the bottom of the depth chart.

 

[KrazyCane]

Richt said that Malik Rosier and Evan Shireffs ran the first team offense today, with Perry and fellow freshman Cade Weldon running the 2nd and 3rd units. Richt also said, "we may continue the same rotation, but I'm not sure."

Lol sounds like Perry up next

 

[KrazyCane]

Going into camp he is 4th string. I've heard no buzz about him lately, such as "wait until he gets in pads" or "he has great chemistry with Richards." Nothing. If he is going to win the position, he'll never have a better shot than right now (and it's not looking good). I have nothing against Gray Crow, always a need for good scout qbs. I don't think it's unfair to wonder why a QB who was considered by many to be way faster, athletic, and more polished than Perry isn't neck and neck with him to start. Instead he is chilling with Testaverde Jr on the bottom of the depth chart.

I've never heard any buzz about Cade Weldon. He's a back up qb his role is set if he stays at UM.

 

[Canedude08]

I can't help but laugh at people who are making definitive statements after 2-3 days of fall practice, especially in regards to first year players. People are desperate to have something to argue over, so they will take a innocuous quote and try to make it into something it isn't. Perry had solid passing chops in HS, i'm not shocked he would look good in drills. The question is how he does in scrimmages, how is he doing in the meeting room. We won't know anything about that for at least another couple of weeks.

 

[Canedude08]

It won't be on Perry to win the FSU game anyway...it'll be on a running game and the front seven defense. As long as he's coming along nicely, you let him start Week 1. When you start a freshman QB, you take the lumps that come with it. Risk aversion is for losers.

You stand zero chance of beating FSU by going in a shell offensively and attempting to ride the run game with no credible throw game. Like you said, risk aversion is for losers. That applies to going into a shell offensively too. If he can't run the offense, then he shouldn't be out there.

Key to collegiate success is the run game. Last season, Miami ran the football 28(!!) times versus FSU. Pathetic. 33 rush attempts per game on the season...even more pathetic then that one game. You just don't win football games like that in this era of college football. Being a volume running team doesn't mean your offense goes into a shell. If it does, then thats on the scheme, not the concept. The best teams in college football annually, and the most electric offenses run the football at least ~40 times a game...maybe you see a minor deviation from that, but your examples will be few.

Rushing attempts is a misleading stat. Remember, a lot of great teams grind out wins late by running the rock, but they get the lead by throwing it.

 

[hesskilla]

It won't be on Perry to win the FSU game anyway...it'll be on a running game and the front seven defense. As long as he's coming along nicely, you let him start Week 1. When you start a freshman QB, you take the lumps that come with it. Risk aversion is for losers.

You stand zero chance of beating FSU by going in a shell offensively and attempting to ride the run game with no credible throw game. Like you said, risk aversion is for losers. That applies to going into a shell offensively too. If he can't run the offense, then he shouldn't be out there.

Key to collegiate success is the run game. Last season, Miami ran the football 28(!!) times versus FSU. Pathetic. 33 rush attempts per game on the season...even more pathetic then that one game. You just don't win football games like that in this era of college football. Being a volume running team doesn't mean your offense goes into a shell. If it does, then thats on the scheme, not the concept. The best teams in college football annually, and the most electric offenses run the football at least ~40 times a game...maybe you see a minor deviation from that, but your examples will be few.

Rushing attempts is a misleading stat. Remember, a lot of great teams grind out wins late by running the rock, but they get the lead by throwing it.

We have a winner here. Either a team is so physically dominant that they can run the ball at will OR they are trying to shorten the game by running the ball because they are already winning comfortably in the second half.

 

[BigDikCane]

I like what Richt said tho.. Perry gets the ball out of his hands with no problem plus he likes his foot work... Perry is the starter mane

 

[BoxingRobes]

It won't be on Perry to win the FSU game anyway...it'll be on a running game and the front seven defense. As long as he's coming along nicely, you let him start Week 1. When you start a freshman QB, you take the lumps that come with it. Risk aversion is for losers.

You stand zero chance of beating FSU by going in a shell offensively and attempting to ride the run game with no credible throw game. Like you said, risk aversion is for losers. That applies to going into a shell offensively too. If he can't run the offense, then he shouldn't be out there.

Key to collegiate success is the run game. Last season, Miami ran the football 28(!!) times versus FSU. Pathetic. 33 rush attempts per game on the season...even more pathetic then that one game. You just don't win football games like that in this era of college football. Being a volume running team doesn't mean your offense goes into a shell. If it does, then thats on the scheme, not the concept. The best teams in college football annually, and the most electric offenses run the football at least ~40 times a game...maybe you see a minor deviation from that, but your examples will be few.

Rushing attempts is a misleading stat. Remember, a lot of great teams grind out wins late by running the rock, but they get the lead by throwing it.

I tend to think its a pretty straight forward stat...you either run the ball or you don't. We can start to 'yea, but...' or 'whale, actually...' the discussion, but the through line is very straight forward...a conscious effort to run the ball at an adequate volume. Good teams do it. Bad teams do not. Typically, balance will come with the territory as the effort to run the football opens up everything else.

Bottom line, and my take home point, though...we ain't beating Florida State running the football no 27, 29 times...Perry can be (pick any all-time great college quarterback), and not running the football is going to lead us to taking an L in all likelihood versus FSU.

FWIW - Miami's Att/Game (Ranked Nationally) during this atrocious era of Miami football...112, 120, 102, 111, 114, 94, 46, 66, 93...maybe that is one of the many reasons we've sucked...maybe not...but Richt's Att/Gm at UGA was one of the very few concerns I had about him as a hire, and last year didn't exactly ease my thoughts on that.

 

[motorcitycane]

It won't be on Perry to win the FSU game anyway...it'll be on a running game and the front seven defense. As long as he's coming along nicely, you let him start Week 1. When you start a freshman QB, you take the lumps that come with it. Risk aversion is for losers.

You stand zero chance of beating FSU by going in a shell offensively and attempting to ride the run game with no credible throw game. Like you said, risk aversion is for losers. That applies to going into a shell offensively too. If he can't run the offense, then he shouldn't be out there.

Key to collegiate success is the run game. Last season, Miami ran the football 28(!!) times versus FSU. Pathetic. 33 rush attempts per game on the season...even more pathetic then that one game. You just don't win football games like that in this era of college football. Being a volume running team doesn't mean your offense goes into a shell. If it does, then thats on the scheme, not the concept. The best teams in college football annually, and the most electric offenses run the football at least ~40 times a game...maybe you see a minor deviation from that, but your examples will be few.

Rushing attempts is a misleading stat. Remember, a lot of great teams grind out wins late by running the rock, but they get the lead by throwing it.

I tend to think its a pretty straight forward stat...you either run the ball or you don't. We can start to 'yea, but...' or 'whale, actually...' the discussion, but the through line is very straight forward...a conscious effort to run the ball at an adequate volume. Good teams do it. Bad teams do not. Typically, balance will come with the territory as the effort to run the football opens up everything else.

Bottom line, and my take home point, though...we ain't beating Florida State running the football no 27, 29 times...Perry can be (pick any all-time great college quarterback), and not running the football is going to lead us to taking an L in all likelihood versus FSU.

FWIW - Miami's Att/Game (Ranked Nationally) during this atrocious era of Miami football...112, 120, 102, 111, 114, 94, 46, 66, 93...maybe that is one of the many reasons we've sucked...maybe not...but Richt's Att/Gm at UGA was one of the very few concerns I had about him as a hire, and last year didn't exactly ease my thoughts on that.

Wow. What did we rank during our championship years in rushing the football nationally? I'd like to see it.

If Miami could place top 30 in rushing yards annually I'd take it. But I mainly want to see us just run the offense that will suit our recruiting base the most. Not necessarily big 10 style but something to fit the offense. If Richt were to hire an OC after this season who would you guys want?

 

[simplycanes]

There is absolutely no way we win in Tallahassee unless we have a QB who proves he is capable of taking the team on his shoulders. It's a tall task, hence why we're already a double digit underdog.

You don't waltz in against a top 5 team and think you're going to dictate the pace of the game without your QB proving he will beat them if they don't back off the LOS. Period.

This whole idea that we will establish a running game, control the lock, and ride it out to victory has been the gameplan of the 99% of teams who lose these games.

They are going to stack the box and keep pressure, shooting the gaps relentlessly until we prove otherwise. I don't mean 8 men in the box, I mean their entire defense will be boxed near the LOS like we did to them in the Chris Rix through Drew Weatherford years. We cannot run against that, we won't run against that.

So, yes, the game is on the QBs shoulders, whoever that is.

 

[BoxingRobes]

You stand zero chance of beating FSU by going in a shell offensively and attempting to ride the run game with no credible throw game. Like you said, risk aversion is for losers. That applies to going into a shell offensively too. If he can't run the offense, then he shouldn't be out there.

Key to collegiate success is the run game. Last season, Miami ran the football 28(!!) times versus FSU. Pathetic. 33 rush attempts per game on the season...even more pathetic then that one game. You just don't win football games like that in this era of college football. Being a volume running team doesn't mean your offense goes into a shell. If it does, then thats on the scheme, not the concept. The best teams in college football annually, and the most electric offenses run the football at least ~40 times a game...maybe you see a minor deviation from that, but your examples will be few.

Rushing attempts is a misleading stat. Remember, a lot of great teams grind out wins late by running the rock, but they get the lead by throwing it.

I tend to think its a pretty straight forward stat...you either run the ball or you don't. We can start to 'yea, but...' or 'whale, actually...' the discussion, but the through line is very straight forward...a conscious effort to run the ball at an adequate volume. Good teams do it. Bad teams do not. Typically, balance will come with the territory as the effort to run the football opens up everything else.

Bottom line, and my take home point, though...we ain't beating Florida State running the football no 27, 29 times...Perry can be (pick any all-time great college quarterback), and not running the football is going to lead us to taking an L in all likelihood versus FSU.

FWIW - Miami's Att/Game (Ranked Nationally) during this atrocious era of Miami football...112, 120, 102, 111, 114, 94, 46, 66, 93...maybe that is one of the many reasons we've sucked...maybe not...but Richt's Att/Gm at UGA was one of the very few concerns I had about him as a hire, and last year didn't exactly ease my thoughts on that.

Wow. What did we rank during our championship years in rushing the football nationally? I'd like to see it.

If Miami could place top 30 in rushing yards annually I'd take it. But I mainly want to see us just run the offense that will suit our recruiting base the most. Not necessarily big 10 style but something to fit the offense. If Richt were to hire an OC after this season who would you guys want?

Different era of football (its been that long)...but...the answer is better relative to the era. Att/Gm LOW from 99 to 2003 is 35...with the other years in the 37 to 40 range. There were less plays per game in the early 2000s as the pace of the game was a bit slower, so you'll need some context for those numbers. In 2002, Miami would rush the ball 35 times per game, but we'd only have 33 pass attempts per game for a frame of reference. Last year, Miami would run the ball 33 times per game while passing 33 times per game. If you look at the top teams in the country, the number of plays they are running per game Clemson 81 plays per game, Ohio State 76, Alabama 70, USC 74, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State 74. You get the idea of the raw pace of the game increasing. In 2002, the best teams in the country were in the 60s in regards to total plays per game, with a few teams like Oklahoma, Texas, and even Georgia going over 70...fwiw, that was Richt's best year in Georgia, and he avg. 39apg.

 

[motorcitycane]

FSU is already going to line up 8 in the box and blitz often if Perry is the starter. They want to confuse him with different looks and run different blitzes to try to force him into a mistake.

 

[NVA CANE]

It's a shame that in a season where we have lots of talent and the schedule is extremely favorable that our biggest question mark is in the most important position.

Hopefully whomever is the starter (i believe it will be Perry) can play above expectations.

 

[simplycanes]

ni99a said the running game...........I think they will take that away and we have to stop cam akers he looks like the real deal

I'll buy into *** Akers when I see him do it. Problem that these guys are having is that they think UM can just lean on the run game and grind out wins. That's never happened here. This ain't Wisconsin. We are LOADED at the skill spots.

We need to find a QB who can run the offense and get the ball in the hands of those skill guys. That, in turn, will open up the run game.

If these guys think we're going to go to Tallahassee and line up in the I formation and play that old Big 10 run, run, pass game and beat FSU they're nuts. Never gonna happen. We haven't dictated the run game on them in 20 years.

In FSU's 3 losses last year, teams averaged 39 rush attempts versus FSU. Louisville, UNC, and Clemson are not I-Form running teams. This isn't 1982, brother. In FSU's 9 wins over FBS competition...33 carries per game (that is a bottom 20 number).

UNC ran it 32 times. FSU ran it 43 times. Yet UNC beat FSU. That doesn't support your theory.

Louisville ran it a lot because Jackson was killing FSU with his legs and they had a gigantic lead by halftime. I'm guessing they did a ton of running once they got a 50 point lead.

Clemson ran it 38 times against FSU for only 133 yards. Clemson threw it 43 times for 378. That is a heavier pass than run distribution, which also doesn't support your theory.

My theory doesn't discuss runass ratio...simply that you need to run the football in volume...~40 is your wheelhouse. Again, you can nitpick an outlier here or there, but again, look at the dominant teams in college football year in and year out and look at their attempts per game. UNC ran the ball 30 times per game last year...ended up 8-5.

Clemson - 40apg
Alabama - 43 apg
USC - 39apg
Washington - 38apg
Oklahoma - 44apg
Ohio State - 45apg
Penn State - 39apg
Florida State - 40apg
Wisconsin - 47apg
Michigan - 44apg

That is your final Top 10. Averaged 42 attempts per game.

FWIW - Louisville ran 22 times in the first half against FSU.

Thing is, he's not nitpicking. This is why they say if you torture the data enough it eventually gives in. What good are rushing attempts if you net virtually nothing off of them?

The attempts per game stat in isolation tells you nothing. I bet there's a fair amount of mediocre to poor teams who run the ball 30 to 40 times. You have to look at yards per attempt as well. And yes, the passing stats matter too.

The difference is most of the teams you're referencing had very credible threats under center in the passing game. Bama is probably the surprising case that didn't, but let's not confuse our OL with Bama just yet.

Whoever we have under center needs to be able to dropback and deliver a strike under duress. That is the defintion of shouldering it. Remeber Matthew Thomas knocking Kaaya's tooth out on the first series? Yeah, that.

If he cannot do that, we can run our 40 attempts to 27-6 loss having earned 1.5 yards per attempt. If he can, then we're in business. The defense backs up and our YPA becomes more respectable.

I will tell you what, if we come out the first few series and go run, run, incomplete/sack, punt, neither of us need to watch the game. You'll get your 40 carries and I already told you the score.

 

[BoxingRobes]

I'll buy into *** Akers when I see him do it. Problem that these guys are having is that they think UM can just lean on the run game and grind out wins. That's never happened here. This ain't Wisconsin. We are LOADED at the skill spots.

We need to find a QB who can run the offense and get the ball in the hands of those skill guys. That, in turn, will open up the run game.

If these guys think we're going to go to Tallahassee and line up in the I formation and play that old Big 10 run, run, pass game and beat FSU they're nuts. Never gonna happen. We haven't dictated the run game on them in 20 years.

In FSU's 3 losses last year, teams averaged 39 rush attempts versus FSU. Louisville, UNC, and Clemson are not I-Form running teams. This isn't 1982, brother. In FSU's 9 wins over FBS competition...33 carries per game (that is a bottom 20 number).

UNC ran it 32 times. FSU ran it 43 times. Yet UNC beat FSU. That doesn't support your theory.

Louisville ran it a lot because Jackson was killing FSU with his legs and they had a gigantic lead by halftime. I'm guessing they did a ton of running once they got a 50 point lead.

Clemson ran it 38 times against FSU for only 133 yards. Clemson threw it 43 times for 378. That is a heavier pass than run distribution, which also doesn't support your theory.

My theory doesn't discuss runass ratio...simply that you need to run the football in volume...~40 is your wheelhouse. Again, you can nitpick an outlier here or there, but again, look at the dominant teams in college football year in and year out and look at their attempts per game. UNC ran the ball 30 times per game last year...ended up 8-5.

Clemson - 40apg
Alabama - 43 apg
USC - 39apg
Washington - 38apg
Oklahoma - 44apg
Ohio State - 45apg
Penn State - 39apg
Florida State - 40apg
Wisconsin - 47apg
Michigan - 44apg

That is your final Top 10. Averaged 42 attempts per game.

FWIW - Louisville ran 22 times in the first half against FSU.

Thing is, he's not nitpicking. This is why they say if you torture the data enough it eventually gives in. What good are rushing attempts if you net virtually nothing off of them?

The attempts per game stat in isolation tells you nothing. I bet there's a fair amount of mediocre to poor teams who run the ball 30 to 40 times. You have to look at yards per attempt as well. And yes, the passing stats matter too.

The difference is most of the teams you're referencing had very credible threats under center in the passing game. Bama is probably the surprising case that didn't, but let's not confuse our OL with Bama just yet.

Whoever we have under center needs to be able to dropback and deliver a strike under duress. That is the defintion of shouldering it. Remeber Matthew Thomas knocking Kaaya's tooth out on the first series? Yeah, that.

If he cannot do that, we can run our 40 attempts to 27-6 loss having earned 1.5 yards per attempt. If he can, then we're in business. The defense backs up and our YPA becomes more respectable.

I will tell you what, if we come out the first few series and go run, run, incomplete/sack, punt, neither of us need to watch the game. You'll get your 40 carries and I already told you the score.

Of the teams avg 40 att/gm+ only 6 of them (out of 65) avg. under 4ypc. Miami avg. 4.5ypc, your scenario wouldn't apply to them on the whole. They run the ball, per clip, in the top half of the nation, and those numbers would only improve with more carries.

"I bet there's a fair amount of mediocre to poor teams who run the ball 30 to 40 times." - that is the difference between being in the bottom 5 in CFB and in the Top half...that is a huge difference.

 

[canesbaby]

There is absolutely no way we win in Tallahassee unless we have a QB who proves he is capable of taking the team on his shoulders. It's a tall task, hence why we're already a double digit underdog.

You don't waltz in against a top 5 team and think you're going to dictate the pace of the game without your QB proving he will beat them if they don't back off the LOS. Period.

This whole idea that we will establish a running game, control the lock, and ride it out to victory has been the gameplan of the 99% of teams who lose these games.

They are going to stack the box and keep pressure, shooting the gaps relentlessly until we prove otherwise. I don't mean 8 men in the box, I mean their entire defense will be boxed near the LOS like we did to them in the Chris Rix through Drew Weatherford years. We cannot run against that, we won't run against that.

So, yes, the game is on the QBs shoulders, whoever that is.

All of this

 

[arinand1]

Look for Chris Herndon to disappear from the post-practice interview circuit after revealing that Perry fumbled snaps. Rick hates any real info being divulged.

Wasn't he also the one to strongly imply Allison wouldn't be starter during the spring and we didn't hear from him again? Basically said Jack was "accepting his role" and something else implying he wasn't going to start.

Surprised they let him interview, because he let info slip again. LOL

 

[Canes1968]

Anybody know what the VIP note on Perry that was posted on 247? Thanks!

 

[The Franchise]

ni99a said the running game...........I think they will take that away and we have to stop cam akers he looks like the real deal

I'll buy into *** Akers when I see him do it. Problem that these guys are having is that they think UM can just lean on the run game and grind out wins. That's never happened here. This ain't Wisconsin. We are LOADED at the skill spots.

We need to find a QB who can run the offense and get the ball in the hands of those skill guys. That, in turn, will open up the run game.

If these guys think we're going to go to Tallahassee and line up in the I formation and play that old Big 10 run, run, pass game and beat FSU they're nuts. Never gonna happen. We haven't dictated the run game on them in 20 years.

In FSU's 3 losses last year, teams averaged 39 rush attempts versus FSU. Louisville, UNC, and Clemson are not I-Form running teams. This isn't 1982, brother. In FSU's 9 wins over FBS competition...33 carries per game (that is a bottom 20 number).

UNC ran it 32 times. FSU ran it 43 times. Yet UNC beat FSU. That doesn't support your theory.

Louisville ran it a lot because Jackson was killing FSU with his legs and they had a gigantic lead by halftime. I'm guessing they did a ton of running once they got a 50 point lead.

Clemson ran it 38 times against FSU for only 133 yards. Clemson threw it 43 times for 378. That is a heavier pass than run distribution, which also doesn't support your theory.

My theory doesn't discuss runass ratio...simply that you need to run the football in volume...~40 is your wheelhouse. Again, you can nitpick an outlier here or there, but again, look at the dominant teams in college football year in and year out and look at their attempts per game. UNC ran the ball 30 times per game last year...ended up 8-5.

Clemson - 40apg
Alabama - 43 apg
USC - 39apg
Washington - 38apg
Oklahoma - 44apg
Ohio State - 45apg
Penn State - 39apg
Florida State - 40apg
Wisconsin - 47apg
Michigan - 44apg

That is your final Top 10. Averaged 42 attempts per game.

FWIW - Louisville ran 22 times in the first half against FSU.

I think we agree on the general premise that we need to run the football. I don't think we need to have a rigid formula for it though. Great playcallers call plays on the fly. To insist on pounding it into an 8 man box because you feel like you need to run it 44 times per game isn't a great approach. To try to "protect" a QB by becoming too predictable with your offense is a recipe for disaster too.

I agree, though, that we need to run the football to be a great team. We need to run it well though. And I don't think we can do that if we get predictable or insist on a set formula.